When was the first government-recognized same-sex marriage in the United States? It wasn't 2015, when the Supreme Court ruled. Or 2004, when Massachusetts became the first state to recognize marriages for LGBTs. It wasn't in the 80s or 90s, when various cities began offering limited domestic partnerships.
Two of the possible Republican candidates are from Florida and are very popular there. That puts both Bush and Rubio into a favorable position for the nomination, and could help them both in the general election.
The League of Women Voters has been standing its ground in the fight against discrimination and for voting rights for 95 years, and restoring the VRA is an important step to keep our elections fair, free and accessible.
My secret lover, John Deere, and I are extremely grateful that Rep. Steve King has allowed man/mower unions to step out from the shadows. It is with enormous pride that I post the following announcement
Waldman says even though the Court's conservative are likely to do more damage to workers' rights and women's access to health care during the next term, "You can bet that the GOP presidential candidates are going to have to promise primary voters that they'll deliver more Supreme Court justices like Alito, and fewer like Anthony Kennedy or even Roberts."
The tragic shooting deaths of nine African-American congregants in a South Carolina church and its juxtaposition with the ongoing debate about police mistreatment of African-Americans in a nation led by president who is part African suggests we are in a curious moment in U.S. history.
The framed certificate that now hangs on our wall is not a political statement or a symbol of any kind of so-called "culture war," despite what the right-wingers in my own country may think. For Joe and I, that marriage certificate is a powerful reminder to take our vows seriously.
Those of us outside the courthouse cannot know which cases fall by the wayside, receiving less judicial attention than they require. Every litigant expects what the courts promise: Justice. But some of us aren't getting it.
Children long have been taught by their parents that anyone in America can grow up to be president. Today that message needs to be revised: anyone can grow up to be president if they are willing to circumvent and break the nation's anti-corruption campaign finance laws, and are willing to genuflect before the nation's wealthiest individuals.
Far-right extremists are deathly afraid of the growing progressivism among American youth and will undertake any measures to maintain the status quo and keep the power to legislate policies that are based in hatred, bigotry, and xenophobia.
By departing from tradition and becoming more inclusive and less doctrinaire, the court has deprived itself of any brakes that might stop the train it has set in motion. Many will think this is a good thing. The question Scalia and the other dissenters raise is whether it is a legal good thing.
According to Senator Cruz, if you like a decision, the court is terrific and doing our country a great favor. But if you disagree with a decision, the court is an imperialist body of out-of-touch, snooty elitists.
Anti-LGBT bullying and job and housing bias persist in America's heartland, as do misguided drives by some extremists to give bigotry justified by religion the force of law. But even they see the writing on the wall. The days of the gay exception are numbered.
His case is the kind that should keep people of good conscience awake at night. Both morally and legally, it illustrates many of the most troubling flaws in our system of state-sanctioned killing: the risk of executing the innocent, the inadequate legal representation often provided to poor criminal defendants charged with the most serious offenses, the inconsistencies of the appeal process, and the cruelty of all forms of capital punishment.
While "liberty" is indeed an abstract concept, the Constitution is full of such concepts, and concerns about abuse do not excuse judges from conscientiously interpreting and applying those concepts.
Lash's Constitution is amoral -- it would allow myriad individual rights that are central to human flourishing to be voted up or down. He is free, of course, to argue for that view -- but it is one that the Founders rejected, the Framers of the Reconstruction Amendments rejected.